From Possession to Paper: SC reaffirms adverse-possession title as a “pre‑existing right” (Mukesh v. State of M.P., 2024 INSC 1026) -A View point

 The Supreme Court in Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (decided 20 Dec 2024) held that where a compromise/consent decree merely recognises a litigant’s pre-existing right in the suit property (including a right that may have matured from continuous adverse possession), such a decree does not require compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, and—on the facts—cannot be treated as a “conveyance” attracting stamp duty for mutation.

This is significant for adverse possession because the Court expressly relies on Ravinder Kaur Grewal to reiterate that continuous, uninterrupted adverse possession can confer right, title and interest and can be used as a sword—supporting the “pre-existing right” analysis.

Print Page

Supreme Court: No Registration Or Stamp Duty Required For Compromise Decree Acquiring Property With Pre-Existing Right

 According to the Court, a compromise decree would not require registration if the below mentioned three conditions mentioned under Section 17(2)(vi) are fulfilled: -

"(i)There must be a compromise decree as per the terms of the compromise without any collusion;

(ii)The compromise decree must pertain to the subject property in the suit; and

(iii)There must be a pre-existing right over the subject property, and the compromise decree should not create a right afresh."

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14808 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 4293 of 2021)

MUKESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. 

Author: R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 1026

Dated: DECEMBER 20, 2024.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to register adoption deed?

 The civil court rejected the petition on two grounds firstly that the biological parents have taken objection for giving the child in adoption and secondly that adoption deed is not registered as per Section 16 of HAMA. As regards the rejection on the ground of absence of consent is concerned, as indicated above, the proper course would have been to relegate the parties to the remedy of substantive suit. This was not done and the petition was rejected. The second ground was that the adoption deed was not registered. In that context if we peruse Section 16 of HAMA, it raises a statutory presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption provided that the condition precedent is satisfied and cannot be interpreted to mean that the adoption deed is required to be registered. In that context if we peruse the provisions of Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908, the deed of adoption does not find mention in the documents required to be compulsorily registered.  The provisions of HAMA do not require a document to be registered, however, there is a statutory presumption which arises in respect of the registered document relating to adoption. In the present case, as the deed of adoption is not registered, the condition precedent for statutory presumption to be raised is not satisfied and as such without evidence being led, there can be no presumption relating to adoption as regards the unregistered deed of adoption. 

{Para 32}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 6461 of 2023

Decided On: 19.08.2023

Jeetendra  Vs. Yash 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3247/2023.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to enclose no objection certificate For Registering Sale Of Fragmented Land?

 In our view, neither sections 34 and 35 nor section 69 of the Indian Registration Act empowers the State Government to issue directions to the Sub-Registrar who is the statutory authority under the Registration Act to desist the registration of the document on account of breach of any terms and conditions under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holding Act, 1947 or under any other law or without obtaining prior No Objection Certificate from the concerned authority as a precondition for the registration of any document. {Para 31}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2111 of 2022

Decided On: 05.05.2022

 Govind Ramling Solpure and Ors.  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.D. Dhanuka and S.G. Mehare, JJ.

Author: R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1601/2022

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to register an arbitration award that provides for the partition of Properties in the future?

On a perusal of the award which is in the form of a resolution, it is clear that there was no right created in any specific item or asset of the joint family properties in any person but the parties resolved to take certain actions in pursuance of a family arrangement. Therefore under Annexure P-10 (Ex. B-13) there was no right created in favour of any party in any specific item of joint family property. The said document which has been styled as an award is, in our view, only a memorandum of understanding/family arrangement to be acted upon in future. Hence, in our considered view, the said document did not create rights in specific properties or assets of the family, in favour of specific persons. Therefore, the same did not require registration under section 17(1)(e) of the Act. The said document was in the nature of a document envisaged under section 17(2)(v) of the Act. For a better understanding of the same it would be useful to refer to section 17(1)(e) and 17(2)(v) as under:

“17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.—(l) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:—

xxxxxxxxx

(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;

xxxxxxxxx

(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (l) applies to:—

xxxxxxxxx

(v) any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A) not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest.”

{Para 28}

29. Having regard to the aforesaid provisions of law it can be safely concluded that the said award was a mere arrangement to divide the properties in future by metes and bounds as distinguished from an actual deed of partition under which there is not only a severance of status but also division of joint family properties by metes and bounds in specific properties. Hence it was exempted from registration under Section 17(2)(v) of the Act. A document of partition which provides for effectuating a division of properties in future would be exempt from registration under section 17(2)(v). The test in such a case is whether the document itself creates an interest in a specific immovable property or merely creates a right to obtain another document of title. If a document does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, which will, when executed create a right in the person claiming relief, the former document does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence vide Ranjangam Iyer v. Ranjangam Iyer, AIR 1922 PC 266.

30. In the instant case exhibit B-13 award is more in the nature of a memorandum of understanding, a mere agreement of the steps to be taken in future for the division of the properties. Hence, the said document did not require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act as under the said document no creation of rights in any specific joint family property was effected. Hence the second limb of the contention of the appellant is accordingly answered.

31. Thus, in our view the judgment in O.P. No. 7 of 1972 which was a petition filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying to receive the award passed by the arbitrators and to pass a judgment thereon, wherein it was held that the award was not registered as mandated under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act and hence could not be made a rule of the Court, is wholly incorrect. In our view, the award was not a document of title to the property hence it did not require registration. Therefore, the Order dated 22nd August, 1975 passed in O.P. No. 7 of 1972 holding that the award was inadmissible in evidence as it was not registered and hence a decree could not be passed, is incorrect.

32. In our view, exhibit B-13 did not require registration.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.)

K. Arumuga Velaiah  Vs P.R. Ramasamy 

Civil Appeal No. 2564 of 2012

Decided on January 27, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 95

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to register gift deed executed by Muslim person?

Mohammedan Law - Gift by mohammedan - Can be made orally - Three essentials of valid gift are; 1) declaration by donor, 2) acceptance by donee, and 3) delivery of possession - If these essentials are satisfied, transaction would not be rendered invalid because it is reduced to writing on a plain piece of paper - Whether it requires registration would depend on facts of the case. 

The three essentials of a gift under Mohammedan Law are; (i) declaration of the gift by the donor; (2) acceptance of the gift by the donee, and (3) delivery of possession. Though, the rules of Mohammadan Law do not make writing essential to the validity of a gift; an oral gift fulfilling all the three essentials make the gift complete and irrevocable. However, the donor may record the transaction of gift in writing. Merely because the gift is reduced to writing by a Mohammadan instead of it having been made orally, such writing does not become a formal document or instrument of gift. When a gift could be made by Mohammadan orally, its nature and character is not changed because of it having been made by a written document. What is important for a valid gift under Mohammadan Law is that three essential requisites must be fulfilled. The form is immaterial. If all the three essential requisites are satisfied constituting valid gift, the transaction of gift would not be rendered invalid because it has been written on a plain piece of paper. The distinction that if a written deed of gift recites the factum of prior gift then such deed is not required to be registered but when the writing is contemporaneous with the making of the gift, it must be registered, is inappropriate and does not seem to be in conformity with the rule of gifts in Mohammadan Law. Section 129 of T.P. Act preserves the rule of Mohammadan Law and excludes the applicability of Section 123 of T.P. Act to a gift of an immovable property by a Mohammadan. It is not the requirement that in all cases where the gift deed is contemporaneous to the making of the gift then such deed must be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Each case would depend on its own facts.

                                     SUPREME COURT

R.M. LODHA AND S.S. NIJJAR, JJ.

Hafeeza Bibi & Ors.Vs.Shaikh Farid (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors.

Civil Appeal No.1714 of 2005

5th May, 2011

Citation: 2011(3) ALL MR 981 (S.C.)

Print Page

When it is not mandatory to register family settlement?

 If we apply the test as to whether the Khararunama in this case by itself ‘affects’, i.e., by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties in question or whether it merely refers to what the appellants alleged were past transactions which have been entered into by the parties, then, going by the words used in the document, they indicate that the words are intended to refer to the arrangements allegedly which the parties made in the past. The document does not purport to by itself create, declare, assign, extinguish or limit right in properties. Thus, the Khararunama may not attract Section 49(1)(a) of the Registration Act.

We notice the following conclusion of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in A.C. Lakshmipathy and others v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and others AIR 2001 Madras 135: “42. To sum up the legal position xxx xxx xxx (V) However, a document in the nature of a Memorandum, evidencing a family arrangement already entered into and had been prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon, in order that there are no hazy notions in future, it need not be stamped or registered.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).6141 OF 2021

KORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO & ANR Vs KORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR 

Author: K.M. JOSEPH, J.

Dated: OCTOBER 1, 2021. 

Print Page

Whether purchaser of immovable property must remain present before sub-registrar at the time of registration of sale deed?

 The main dispute involved in this appeal concerns the

question of necessity of presence of a purchaser of immovable

property before the authority under the Registration Act, 1908 at

the time of effecting registration of a deed of conveyance.

The case has been decided in favour of the plaintiff on the

ground that the buyer was not present at the time of

registration of sale deed. There is evidence to the effect that the

second defendant (Manchegowda) had not come to the office of

the SubRegistrar at the time of execution of the sale deed. But

as per law as it stood at the material point of time, there was no

necessity of presence of purchaser at the Registration Office

during the registration of sale deed. The deed was executed by

Madegowda and that aspect has not been disputed. The deed in

question does not fall within Sections 31, 88 and 89 of the

Registration Act. Section 32 of the said Act does not require

presence of both parties to a deed of sale when the same is

presented for registration. In such circumstances, we do not

find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the High

Court.

(NonReportable)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3975 OF 2010

H.P.Puttaswamy  Vs  Thimmamma & Ors. 

Author: ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J.

Dated: 24th January, 2020.

Print Page

Whether applicant can be made to face consequences if delay occurs due to wrongful act of authority?

Can the Sub Registrar who refused to register a document presented for registration on a mistaken interpretation of the statutory provisions, which refusal was found to be erroneous by the superior authority, later refuse registration on the ground that the document was presented out of time? This is the question posed by Sri S. Renjith, the learned counsel, who appears for the petitioner in this Writ Petition.

 Exhibit P1 is the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by the Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority for and on behalf of the State Government. As per the said deed, the petitioner was assigned the entire rights, title and interest over 1.62 Ares of property. No right whatsoever was reserved for the

Government or the Kerala water authority. The petitioner had every right to assign the property to any person he chooses. Later, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the property to a certain Shasil Mohammed. Exhibit P2 sale deed

was executed on 15.01.2021 and the same was presented before the 1st respondent on the next day itself. Relying on Section 71 (3), the 1st respondent proceeded to refuse registration and demanded that the petitioner should obtain an NOC from the District Collector. 

8. Section 71 (3) places an embargo on the registering officer and he is interdicted from accepting any document for registration involving transfer including a contract for the sale of immovable property if the property involved therein is vested in the Government of Kerala or public sector undertakings operating in the State or local self-government institutions unless it is accompanied by a no-objection certificate issued by an officer authorised by the State Government. It is evident from Exhibit P1 and P2 that the entire rights over the property were vested with the petitioner and neither the State or the KWA had any rights over the same. He had absolute authority to transfer the same free of all encumbrances. This was what was

noted by the 2nd respondent while passing Exhibit P6. I have no doubt in my mind that the 1st respondent has misinterpreted the statutory provisions and has refused registration. As rightly argued by the learned Counsel, this is where the maxim “Nul

prendra advantage de son tort demesne” comes in. The 1st respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. The petitioner cannot be asked to pay a fine for delayed presentation of the document as it was owing to the wrongs

committed by the 1st respondent that registration was delayed.

The petitioner is entitled to succeed. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) NO. 13580 OF 2021

M.A. JOY Vs   SUB REGISTRAR,

PRESENT

 MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

Dated: 20.07.2021, 

Print Page

Whether tenant can challenge the validity of the landlord's family settlement on the ground that it is not registered?

 As far as the family settlement is concerned, as held by this

Court in Harbhajan Singh (supra), the petitioners as tenants cannot challenge the same for want of registration. I may only quote from the said judgement as under:

"4. Yet again the counsel for the petitioner has agitated

these issues before me. It is argued the family settlement dated

30.11.1998 is in fact a deed of partition which requires

registration and since is not registered; could not have been

relied upon by the learned ARC. I disagree with the

contention. Firstly, because even if this partition deed is

ignored still the petitioner is a co-owner of the property as has

inherited from common ancestor; and secondly, in Gopal

Kishan vs. Ram Saroop 243 (2017) DLT 66 the Court held a

tenant has no locus standi to challenge the family settlement so

arrived at between the members of the family of the land lord

even if it is not registered. All that the respondent lastly is to

show he is having a better status than the tenant, may be he is

not an absolute owner of the premises. Admittedly, the

petitioner has been paying rent to the respondent."{Para 10}

11. There is, therefore, enough material on record to substantiate

that the respondents were the owner- landlords of the tenanted shops. I therefore, find no merit in the submission of the petitioners in this  regard.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 16.12.2020

RC.REV. 188/2020

SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.  Vs  MAHESH 

CORAM:

 MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

Print Page

Supreme court: Registered Document Is Presumed To Be Genuine; Onus To Prove Otherwise Is On Person Who Challenges It

 To appreciate the findings arrived at by the Courts below,

we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record

reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We are,

therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is

presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as held by this

Court in Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors.8. The relevant

portion of the said decision reads as below:

“27. There is a presumption that a registered

document is validly executed. A registered document,

therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of

proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to

rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent

1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.”

(emphasis supplied)

In view thereof, in the present cases, the initial onus was on the

plaintiff, who had challenged the stated registered document.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3681-3682 OF 2020

Rattan Singh Vs  Nirmal Gill 

Author: A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Adoption Deed does not require Registration

In this context, it will be worthwhile to note the requirement of registration of an Adoption Deed. Section 17 of the Registration Act specifically refers to the documents of which registration is compulsory. The deed of adoption is not one of the documents mentioned in sub-section 1 of Section 17 which mandatorily required registration. Sub-section 3 of Section 17 only refers to the mandatory requirement of registration of an authorization that may be given for adopting a son executed after 01.01.1872 if such authorization was not conferred by a Will. Dealing with the said provision relating to authorization, it has been held in the decision reported in Vishvanath Ramji Karale V. Rahibai Ramji Karale and others - AIR 1931 Bombay 105 by a deed of adoption as distinguished from authority to adopt does not require registration.

Supreme Court of India

Mst.Param Pal Singh Tr.Father vs M/S National Insurance Co.& Anr. on 14 December, 2012

Print Page